Do clinically anxious children cluster according to their expression of factors that maintain child anxiety?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for childhood anxiety disorders, yet a significant proportion of children do not benefit from it. CBT for child anxiety disorders typically includes a range of strategies that may not all be applicable for all affected children. This study explored whether there are distinct subgroups of children with anxiety disorders who are characterized by their responses to measures of the key mechanisms that are targeted in CBT (i.e. interpretation bias, perceived control, avoidance, physiological arousal, and social communication). METHODS: 379 clinically anxious children (7-12 years) provided indices of threat interpretation, perceived control, expected negative emotions and avoidance and measures of heart rate recovery following a speech task. Parents also reported on their children's social communication difficulties using the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ). RESULTS: Latent profile analysis identified three groups, reflecting (i) 'Typically anxious' (the majority of the sample and more likely to have Generalized anxiety disorder); (ii) 'social difficulties' (characterized by high SCQ and more likely to have social anxiety disorder and be male); (iii) 'Avoidant' (characterized by low threat interpretation but high avoidance and low perceived control). LIMITATIONS: Some measures may have been influenced by confounding variables (e.g. physical variability in heart rate recovery). Sample characteristics of the group may limit the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically anxious children appear to fall in to subgroups that might benefit from more targeted treatments that focus on specific maintenance factors. Treatment studies are now required to establish whether this approach would lead to more effective and efficient treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".